I rarely watch TV, but I watched a bit of cable news this evening in my hotel. Holy cow, I had forgotten how bad it was. Here are the actual election odds, as of tonight:

Why do they treat us like children, telling us that Rubio and Cruz are neck and neck for second place in the race for the nomination?

It’s a two person race between Trump and Rubio, with Trump leading for the nomination while Rubio is more likely to be elected president. That reflects the fact that Trump’s chances of being elected, conditional on getting the nomination, are abysmal, far below Rubio’s.

The other candidates should just get out. The main question of interest now is who would win between Trump and Rubio on a head to head, with no one else in the race.

I’m surprised that Sanders didn’t fall even more. He did horribly among black voters, and they make up a huge share of the Democratic electorate in the primaries coming up next. He’s about to lose a lot of races. (He won among whites and Hispanics in Nevada, but black voters are the swing group that determines the Democratic nominee.)

Tonight was a disaster for Cruz, as South Carolina is one of his very best states, and he came in third. Rubio will destroy him in big, non-evangelical states like California, New York and Illinois. I think Trump’s best hope is that other non-Rubio candidates stay in the race. He may stop attacking Cruz.

I feel a bit sorry for Jeb. In 1994 he was expected to win Florida and “W” was expected to lose in Texas. On election night it flipped, and Jeb narrowly lost while George Bush won. Florida was trending purple while Texas was trending red. Thus the lesser brother was elected president in 2000, and we know how that turned out. This time Jeb wanted to run on a campaign aimed at grown-ups, but the GOP voters had other ideas.

From the beginning, I’ve thought that Hillary would be the next president, and still believe that. But as you can see, it’s far from a sure thing. Still I’d bet on her; I think the GOP will come out of this badly damaged, and in no position to win.

But then what do I know, I’ve been totally wrong about this race so far.

The thing you’re not grasping here, Scott, is that despite all of his obvious and glaring flaws, there’s a reason people (even the Likudniks in South Carolina, this should have been a slam dunk for shabbot goy like Cruz or Rubio) are voting for him. People are disgusted with the liberal ruling class, even if their articulation of this disgust is still rather ill-formed. This means YOU, Scott, and the whole phony left-right divide, neo-liberalism, etc., in case you’re wondering. If people like you hate Trump, there’s something to recommend about him.

The markets in this campaign season have been notoriously unreliable, carrying no special insight, underestimating Trump (except, as did all pundits, in Iowa), overestimating Bush, and generally being no better than a reasonably well-educated observer. The polls seem to lead the markets, not the other way around.

“Why do they treat us like children, telling us that Rubio and Cruz are neck and neck for second place in the race for the nomination?”

-Maybe because Cruz actually won a state this season in the race for the Republican nomination, while Rubio has thus far won no state?

“It’s a two person race between Trump and Rubio, with Trump leading for the nomination while Rubio is more likely to be elected president.”

-Did I tell you I don’t put any special trust in the markets in this? Rubio is more likely to win in Florida if nominated, while Trump is more likely to win Ohio. Either way, we’ll only see one guy nominated, without a counterfactual everyone could agree on. It is widely agreed that Trump is much more likely to get the much-coveted Reagan Democrat vote than any other candidate.

“But then what do I know, I’ve been totally wrong about this race so far.”

-Exactly. I give Billary 50% chance of winning the election, and Trump a 60% chance of winning the nomination. Just like me on January 1.

“Tonight was a disaster for Cruz, as South Carolina is one of his very best states, and he came in third.”

-It was a close third, and was fully consistent with the polls. He was only about 1000 votes behind Rubio.

“Rubio will destroy him in big, non-evangelical states like California, New York and Illinois.”

-Perhaps. But Trump is really strong in New York.

“This time Jeb wanted to run on a campaign aimed at grown-ups”

-Grown-ups who think Russia is “not even attempting to take out ISIS”, while it pounds ISIS in Syria 10x harder than the U.S. does, contributing to major anti-IS victories by the Syrian government (Aleppo Thermal Power Plant, Mahin, most of the road to Raqqa) and pointed out to everyone the failure of the U.S. to strike IS oil trucks on the Turkish border.

Yes; Jeb was the most pro-establishment candidate, but sometimes, the establishment is way less serious than the guy who thinks vaccines cause autism.

Also, Trump has so far accumulated more delegates than all the other candidates combined. His strongest states are New York, Mississippi, and West Virginia. Cruz’s is Texas. Rubio’s are Florida and California.

Sumner: “That reflects the fact that Trump’s chances of being elected, conditional on getting the nomination, are abysmal, far below Rubio’s.” — not. Trump is 15.2% while Rubio is 17.4%, probably both are tied considering the margin of error.

Sumner: “But then what do I know, I’ve been totally wrong about this race so far.” – true.

I *mostly* agree with the betting odds, with the caveat that the betting markets show a clear “conventional wisdom” bias…almost as if the only people putting money on the line are crusty Europeans looking at exit polls.

To wit, I agree with a previous comment that polls have consistently overestimated the name-recognition candidates (Bush, and yes, Hillary) while underestimating the insurgents.

And why is Kasich at 2.3% for nomination but only 0.6% for president? Are his conditional odds of beating toxic Hillary really only ~25% even when Ohio would be a lock?

I do agree that Cruz is damaged; he is splitting the base with Trump, without getting crossover from blue-collar. More concerning, his speeches are good, but he lacks the emotional connection, and says “I would note” way too much which is lawyer for “ummm”.

Also, Carson is going to stay in until the end. He seems delusional, but I think he has ulterior motives of pr or book selling, and that damages Cruz the most.

Rubio is damaged, too. He yells too much during his speeches, he is a warmonger who would shoot down Russian jets in Syria, and he badly flubbed the debate in NH. The betting odds are a little manic, as Rubio was hurt in NH by the debate, and boosted in SC by the Nikki Haley. We will see where he settles out. Rubio does have the “Camelot” advantage of good looks, which appeals to the 19th amendment set.

I also agree Trump will start hammering Rubio now that Jeb is out and Cruz has been unable to capture the majority of evangelicals. Trump benefits from the media ratings grovelling, and some fraction of voters believe whatever attack line Trump is pushing. Trump’s strategy all along has been to hammer the front-runner, and praise the vote splitter. Now that Rubio is the only establishment left, Rubio will get destroyed.

Finally, I agree Trump is a demagogue but so was Obama. What “Hope and Change” and “Uniter not Divider” has in common with “Make America Great” and “Winning not Losing” is an emotional cadence that connects with people. I know emotional cadence sounds superficial to people who prioritize intellect, but Trump has a significant ability to rope people in with empty promises, as well as the potential to move left on social issues that matter to swing voters who would never go Cruz or even Rubio. Trump is underrated, as much as you might detest him.

Estimating Presidential chances this far out from November has very limited value, since we do not know the state of the economy in the lead up to the relevant Tuesday in November.

If the economy seriously tanks, the next President will be whoever the Republicans nominate (and yes, that includes The Donald). The Fed seem to be working to make that happen.

If Obama gets drawn into a major conflict, the next President will be whoever the Republicans nominate. Obama’s passivity may make that more likely than folk realise (but I still rate it as a low probability).

If Hillary gets elected, she will not only be the first woman President (Bill as First Gentleman, interesting), but she will have broken the postwar pattern of two-term Presidents being succeeded by the other Party, unless you are Ronald Reagan (i.e. no war, booming economy, high Presidential popularity).

@Ray: You can read words, you can even quote them, but often you can’t understand what they mean. Hint: you yourself quoted a phrase, “conditional on getting the nomination”, which was very important — but it seems to have had no impact on your awareness.

Advice for you: when grownups are talking, sometimes it’s ok for children to just be quiet, and listen.

Of course, in Hillary’s favour, you had to have worked quite hard not to be the Democrat nominated to succeed her husband (a much better politician, IMHO) and not get elected, but Al Gore was up to the task of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. All he had to do, was put his arm around Bill and say “I’m his VP, you like him, so vote for me because that’s the only way you can”. It worked for Bush Snr, but dear old Al was too much of an Aspergers Egotist to do the bleeding obvious.

And yes, I know he won the popular vote, but he should have done SO much better, and a more competent politician would have.

The two big advantages Rubio has are these: he seems to be the only major candidate who is known to be capable of taking supporters away from Trump and he is the last establishment candidate left standing (other than Kasich).

Everyone, It’s all my fault; I know if I post on politics the loonies will come out of the woodwork, into the comment section.

Crusher, The Germans hated the ruling class in 1932, how’d that work out for them? (And yes, I’m baiting you.)

E. Harding, You said:

“Maybe because Cruz actually won a state this season in the race for the Republican nomination, while Rubio has thus far won no state?”

That’s exactly why the betting markets are better, they don’t focus on meaningless stuff like wins. Sanders has more votes so far than Hillary, do you think he should be favored in the betting markets?

Ray, You said:

“That reflects the fact that Trump’s chances of being elected, conditional on getting the nomination, are abysmal, far below Rubio’s.” — not. Trump is 15.2% while Rubio is 17.4%, probably both are tied considering the margin of error.”

OK, we find another subject that Ray knows nothing about, conditional probability. Thanks for putting a smile on my face. I sometimes wonder if you know you are being stupid, or if you are so stupid that you don’t even know that you are the laughing stock of this blog. Whichever it is, please, please don’t leave; crusher is much less amusing. At least you have a sense of humor, even if unintentional.

Steve, You said:

“Finally, I agree Trump is a demagogue but so was Obama.”

You need to look up demagogue in the dictionary, as whatever Obama is, he’s not a demagogue. Indeed he’s often criticized for being too professorial. There in no one more different from Trump than Obama, in either party. Saying Obama is a demagogue is like saying Jeb Bush is frivolous and giddy. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that just because you don’t like someone, you can pin any old negative label on him.

Obama doesn’t say things like don’t let muslims into the country. Or Mexican illegals are rapists. Or the Chinese are stealing our jobs. That’s demagoguery.

Hillary is an absolutely horrid candidate. Her stump speeches are so labored, and she sounds calculated and divisive trying to weave in buzz phrases about “coded racial language” or “pay inequality” then barking like a dog.

Hillary was also a complete disaster as Secretary of State, from bombing Libya, to endangering national security on e-mails.

Her entire pitch is “it’s my time to be a woman president.” It sounds even more entitled than “Right to Rise.”* That will get 40-45% of the vote, but it won’t motivate turnout.

How is Hillary going to defend her record or her divisive rhetoric in a debate come October? If Republicans had a strong candidate, it would be easy.

* I never understood if “Right to Rise” meant “Entitlement to Rise” or “Conservatives to Rise”.

“That’s exactly why the betting markets are better, they don’t focus on meaningless stuff like wins. Sanders has more votes so far than Hillary, do you think he should be favored in the betting markets?”

-The betting markets do focus on meaningless stuff like wins, even when they’re clearly meaningless. And Hillary has more states won than Sanders. Regarding the Dem vote, I’m going with the strategy of always betting on the Black vote here, since it was absolutely decisive in 2008 and shows no sign of shifting to Sanders. I have no idea why this is so, but I’ll take the facts as they exist on the ground and not attempt the more difficult task of explaining them.

“You need to look up demagogue in the dictionary, as whatever Obama is, he’s not a demagogue. Indeed he’s often criticized for being too professorial. There in no one more different from Trump than Obama, in either party. Saying Obama is a demagogue is like saying Jeb Bush is frivolous and giddy. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that just because you don’t like someone, you can pin any old negative label on him.

Obama doesn’t say things like don’t let muslims into the country. Or Mexican illegals are rapists. Or the Chinese are stealing our jobs. That’s demagoguery.”
Scott, this is absurd. At best, you’re saying Lebron James isn’t tall because, like, just look at how tall Shaquille O’Neal is!

Obama attacked the Supreme Court (to their faces) in the middle of a state of the union address for having the gall to not outlaw freedom of speech, the farthest thing from ‘professional’. The man has consistently used racial and class animosities of an emotional unthinking public to his own political advantage and to bypass other branches of government. That makes him a demagogue.

The markets depend heavily on the media, and the media gets a whole bunch of this stuff wrong. For example, SC actually wasn’t the greatest Cruz state. There are serious regional differences between peoples, yet the media labels diverse groups as the same thing, like “evangelical” or “conservative”. But the reality is that SC evangelicals are a bit different than Oklahoma evangelicals.

The media (and markets) don’t account for delegate math. Cruz still has a strong path to victory that Rubio does not, since he is likely to come out of the SEC primary with a handful of won states while Rubio is likely to have zero and be forced to drop out.

I love markets as much as the next guy, but politics is something people are really great at poorly analyzing. I can list many examples but will only leave it at those two.

Obama spent $8 trillion on national defense (the Department of Defense, DHS, the VA, black budget and prorated debt) during his eight years in office. He continuously occupied Afghanistan to prop up an Islamic narco-state infamous for its corruption.

The GOP says Obama should have spent far more on warmaking ability and perhaps occupied a few more nations. Btw, we face no military threats.

I don’t see any reason why John Kasich should get out. He and Rubio each have one second place and one fifth place finish. Maybe we should let the actual voters decide.

Of course, if we took actual governing seriously, Kasich would be winning in a landslide. Besides Kasich, we have two freshman Senators, a doctor, and a reality show guy/twitter troll who inherited a lot of money.

John Kasich? The guy who calls for an end to public criticism of Israel? (How long before he wants an end to private criticism as well?) This is the guy you regard as obviously more professional and qualified to be president? OK.

“Hillary was also a complete disaster as Secretary of State, from bombing Libya, to endangering national security on e-mails.”

But voters don’t care about that stuff.

I happen to despise Hillary, but you can’t beat something with nothing.

And I don’t think the winner in American politics depends on the quality of the campaign. The press simply assumes that if someone won they must have run the better campaign.

Steve, You said:

“You’re right, conservatives just get bitter, they cling to guns or religion. And they are all obstructionist extremists. All fact.”

Look, the word demagogue has a specific meaning, and saying conservatives cling to guns is about has far from demagoguery as one can be. It’s almost the exact opposite—elitism. You are making the following mistake:

1. Demagogues are bad.
2. Obama is bad
3. Ergo Obama is a demagogue.

Not so, if anything he’s an elitist.

Mark, You clearly don’t know what the word demagogue means. Calling for campaign finance reform may be a stupid stupid idea, but it’s not demagoguery. Calling for banning Muslims is demagoguery. Words have specific meanings, and not all pejoratives have the same meaning.

Steve F. Well obviously in the end the markets will be “wrong” in the sense that one guy will win, and the positive odds on the others will look foolish. But if that’s your view you should be betting lots of money on Rubio not getting the nomination.

Ben Cole, So you are saying Obama is a demagogue on national defense even as he fights the GOP, trying to reduce spending? Does no one in this comment section know what the word demagogue means? Seriously? Didn’t we all watch films of demagogues in social science class when we were young?

Ben J, Thanks, a voice of sanity.

Negation, He should get out because he has very little chance, and staying in helps Trump. Right now the only goal of the GOP should be stopping Trump, if they want to prevent their party from becoming like France’s National Front.

bklyn1900, You do know that Obama is not running for president don’t you? So why link to a video of Obama in a campaign post?

Ray, You said: “That reflects the fact that Trump’s chances of being elected, conditional on getting the nomination, are abysmal, far below Rubio’s.” — not. Trump is 15.2% while Rubio is 17.4%, probably both are tied considering the margin of error.”

OK, we find another subject that Ray knows nothing about, conditional probability. Thanks for putting a smile on my face.

You’re welcome, but the joke’s on you professor, as you don’t know how to read a graph (remember the hidden rectangle? Comes back to bite YOU this time). This is not Bayes theorem, but rather, reading comprehension. Your erroneous quote reads: “That reflects the fact that Trump’s chances of being elected, conditional on getting the nomination, are abysmal, far below Rubio’s.” while my correct answer, from the graphic, reads: “Trump is 15.2% while Rubio is 17.4%”. Note carefully–sit down for this one–17.4% is not that different from 15.2%. And while we’re at it, remember the 3.2% to 13.2% numbers that leave MM in shambles.

“Lorenzo, If only Gore had won, I believe we’d be far better off today.”

A definitely arguable case. Also, it would have meant a reversion to the normal pattern of the Democrats being the War Party (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam). Yes, partly they were just the incumbents at the time: still, it was a striking pattern. The pattern then became: the Democrats being the War Party except when a Bush was President.

It’s a little thing, but Rubio sounds like he’s clueless about finance. He’s a lawyer.

Despite his income (including a million dollar book deal), he withdrew $60,000 in 401(k) money to pay off some bills a year or two ago.

From a financial planning standpoint, this is about the stupidest thing he could have done, paying income plus excise taxes for the privilege. Really awful financial management for a guy who has a lot of income.

Maybe I’m the only guy left who worries about the federal budget, but I find this little nugget ominous.

I disagree with E Harding’s view about the accuracy to date of the markets vs the polls vs the pundits. The markets may have underestimated Trump, but not more than the vast majority of pundits who for much of the last six months have been assigning Trump a nearly zero chance of winning the nomination. Many “educated observers” got this much more wrong than the markets, and more. The polls have been good at predicting caucuses and primaries, but they are designed to do so – the markets are mostly focused on the nominations and the general election, in terms of liquidity in those markets, and predictions about the final nominees and the general are just not going to be very predictive of individual states.

That said there is definitely reason to doubt the markets simply because they are just not very liquid. There are surprisingly few betters in these markets, so few in fact that individual betters can and do move the price of shares, especially in those relatively small state-level markets.

I would trust the markets much more than the pundits, especially the cable TV pundits, about the Democratic primary and the general election, and I would put very little trust in anything at all about the Republican primary. The GOP races have had and still do have a much larger state space owing to the relatively large and unstable GOP field.

PS – I don’t know why the delegate count matters so much to people at this point; Trump has 61 delegates but needs 1,200+ to win the nomination. If he is likely to win it is because of the likelihood of obtaining further delegates in the near future, not because he currently has 61. Same goes for the Democratic primary, which is admittedly more complicated by the fact that Hillary already has, on paper anyway, hundreds of superdelegates.

Brian Donohue, you’re not so stupid as to think the Federal budget and an individual/household budget are even remotely comparable, are you? Or that the President has exclusive control over these things?

Except that Obama is all for the little guy, as long as the little guy isn’t a Christian, Republican, or small businessman. Hence the rhetoric about bitter extremist conservatives, bible/gun clinging, the Crusades, income inequality, etc.

It seems the difference is that Obama inflames popular passion in a deliberate professorial way, while Trump screams at the top of his lungs. I see your point, I just don’t think Obama’s thin veneer of rationalism exempts him from charges of demagoguery.

@Ray: Even when someone rubs your nose in your mistake, you still can’t figure it out? You’re actually dumber than a dog? Ray: those numbers you quoted, and that graph you referred to, don’t offer data on “Trump’s chances of being elected, conditional on getting the nomination”. The graph that you read from, is only reporting “Trump’s chances of being elected”, which is a very different thing. Hint: nobody is arguing about the difference between 17.4% vs. 15.2%. Your problem is that none of those numbers are even relevant to the question.

But you obviously don’t understand that there’s any difference, as here you double down on your original ignorant response.

I know you have a pathological fear of admitting any kind of mistake. I can’t wait to see what kind of blubbering excuse you’ll come up with next.

The funny thing is I actually support Rubio, but Rubio makes me nervous because he has some newly revealed flaws: running around lying about his views on immigration, trying to appear strong by threatening to shoot down Russian jets, and being slow and rehearsed in debates.

I’m hopeful these are just growing pains and/or attempts to co-opt the right.

Still, I think the Republican Party has made a huge string of strategic errors:
1. Assuming the public wants 28 years of Bush (VP+P). Foreign money loves familiar names, but the US voter?
2. Relying on poll tests of electability, when the polled are uninformed and hence biased toward familiarity (again Bush and Clinton) when Romney, Perry, Walker, etc. all dropped out early.
3. Trashing Trump voters instead of trying to understand and co-opt them. How can Rs win an election without getting most of the Trump voters on board for the establishment?
4. Score-settling with Cruz instead of making peace with him.

The fourth error might be fatal. Cruz doesn’t have a clear easy path to the nomination at this point, but he does have veto power over Rubio. Cruz can pretty much decide this race by endorsing Rubio or Trump, but he might just burn things down and run again in four years if Republicans persist in short-term tactical errors.

The Republicans seem determined to win the nomination on a plurality, without ever reckoning with their demons.

Trump-Kasich (wins Ohio and NY) with Cruz running as the SCOTUS choice (Trump will say out loud that Cruz gets Scalia’s seat on Day One).

Cruz as Trumps’ SCOTUS GUARANTEE means 100% turn out on guns and life… which means ALL social cons, which means EVERY SINGLE GOP CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE and the NRO have to Endorse and campaign with Trump even though he and Kasich are CLEAR signal that we get a modified version of Ocare and support for private sector unions…

So Kasich AND Carson stay in race until Trump sews it up to interfere with Rubio and Cruz, and then Cruz stays in race to interfere with Rubio.

It’s in every other player’s long term career interest to box out Rubio and topple DC Establishment.

“At this point I wouldn’t care if Rubio was found to be a drug dealer—anyone but Trump.”

-There you have it; a classic case of academic Trump Derangement Syndrome. I don’t trust Rubio because he is a tool of the establishment and seems like a formula for Erdogan-like Maximum Problems With Neighbors (especially Cuba and Russia). Seriously, click on those links. He seems to either believe or pretend to believe the nutty idea that if the U.S. just gives Kiev enough weapons, Russia will somehow realize all its massive sunk cost into Donbass was totally meaningless, and that it certainly doesn’t have a more-than-equivalent amount of weapons on hand to defend against any Ukrainian offensive. And that Russia will (contrary to the wishes of over 80% of Russians and Crimeans) ever give up Krim to any other country for any reason. And that no diplomatic engagement with the only country even remotely comparable with the U.S. in its nuclear arsenal is a good thing. And other highly dangerous nonsense far more mad than anything Donald Trump has proposed, all making something like the Daisy ad highly appropriate for Candidate Rubio.

So Rubio narrows the margin a whole 1% from Bush out. Rubio probably gets 2% from Kasich out, and nothing from Carson out.

“because the Bush and Kasich votes will go to Rubio.”

This is the kind of flawed thinking that has put the party in this position. It’s why I’ve argued that the Republicans are foolish to the n-th degree for snubbing Cruz, and why Republican elites really need to listen to the rest of the party instead of assuming they will “go to” whomever is the anointed one.

Also, the Pope probably added a point or three to Trump with his pre-primary publicity. It plays into the fears that the Republican are really an internationalist party. Foreign leaders who dislike Trump should shut their mouths, but they really can’t help themselves, can they?

“Why do they treat us like children, telling us that Rubio and Cruz are neck and neck for second place in the race for the nomination?”

It’s as if commentators on a business show spent their time explaining how the day’s news had affected the outlook of various companies, without any reference to how their stocks were performing (and in fact, often wildly inconsistent with it).

Trump is starting to lower his jerk first style. I dont think HRC is a strong candidate. As the lower tier drops the republican race will close. Rubio is the only one who beats Hillary in the polls consistently. It appears this may come down to Rubio versus Trump in a closer race than your odds state, as the conditional probabliliies do not seem to be factored in. The so called “establishment” are going to shift atrongly toward Marco. This will be an interesting race. We prognosticators will know a lot more by March 15th.

Engineer, Also the nomination stats. There’s always a tiny chance that Hillary has an illness, or indictment, which leads to Biden jumping in.

Martin, Yeah, “abysmal” was the wrong adjective, it seems like about 7-3 against Trump, which still gives him a non-trivial shot at it. So you are correct.

Michael, I still think the GOP brand has serious problems in a general election. If I bet, I’d bet on Hillary. (The last two elections I bet on Obama, but now I’m too busy to even figure out how to do so.)

@Sumner, Geddis: no, I get it, you two don’t. In terms of conditional probability (Bayes Theorem) both Rubio and Trump are about tied, since to win the Republican ticket they are roughly equal (Trump is slightly ahead). Look carefully at what you originally wrote, which is not about Bayes. Quit trying to fool your readers by pretending to know statistics.

5% seems like a very high probability of someone else winning who is not on the list when the only one talked about is Bloomberg and he is at 1.1%. If the republicans have a brokered convention and they reach an impasse, then there is a possibility that a compromise candidate could arise…I think this also seems very remote. If Hillary has a problem, the Bern will be the nominee. It does not leave me with a high confidence with these predictions.

I like the coup d’etat theory better, it goes with the entire election…right out of latin america…

On a side note, I think a Rubio/Kasich ticket would have much better than 50/50 odds with Florida/Ohio in the Red column. I was listening to Rubio this morning with Stephanopoulos and I though this is the most gifted Republican politician in my lifetime. He is still a little green..but maturing fast…republicans are crazy if they don’t nominate him. If Kasich wins Ohio, Rubio Florida, and Cruz wins Texas, I think you have a brokered convention. Cruz is promised the supreme court seat, Kasich is offered VP, and the Rubio/Kasich win nomination and election. That is my prediction.

‘It’s all due to the fact that when more people vote, Democrats do better in elections. It turns out that Democratic ideals appeal to low income people, which are the people most affected by these restrictions on voting. If Republicans can pretend that they are preventing voter fraud (a proven non-issue), then they can prevent those extra Democrat voters from being able to cast a ballot.

“Since 2011, seven states have curtailed early voting and 13 have added requirements that voters show some form of ID.” ‘

“The most interesting thing I found about these probabilities is that they add to less than 95%.”

Agree… someone is mispriced. Betting odds, involving pools of contestants, should always add up to more than 100%. Otherwise you buy everyone, and do those bets again and again, and just let probability, time, and frequency work its magic.

Gramms and Gramps loved taking me to watch the ponies when I was just a tiny ‘lil pup. Always wish I had the chance to have told them how much I owe them for that.

BEIJING — China’s new-auto sales increased 7.7% on the year in January with help from an ongoing tax benefit on compact vehicles and higher demand before the Lunar New Year. Sales last month came to 2,500,600 units, the China Association of Auto…

–30–

More than 80% of currency specialists expect further monetary easing by the Bank of Japan this year, according to a recent survey by QUICK, a financial information service provider.

–30–

In other news, Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ reported it will lower its best rate on 10-year fixed-rate mortgages to 0.8%

–30–

I wonder if Japanese people have higher living standards than Americans. If housing is cheaper, and health care, and much of the economy is is uncounted cash….and less income siphoned off by government….yes I know what the per capita GDP numbers show, PPP and all of that. But when cash is king, and the average Japanese resident has $6,000 (in yen), The typical family of three has $18,000 in a drawer? And many stores, bars etc do not accept plastic? And mortgages are 0.8%…

1) Why is Rubio so much higher than Cruz? For ~4 months, Rubio has been defined as the primary frontrunner everywhere but the voters and he has yet to win a Primary. It appears the voters are not rallying around him. Look at the Primaries next week, the only one is expected to win is Minnesota versus Texas, Massachusetts and a bunch of very red Southern states. Although I not sure exactly why, Rubio is not winning voters.

2) In reality, Cruz does much better than Rubio against Trump with one-on-one battles. Remember Trump is winning lots of moderate Republican voters in the Northeast where Rubio was ‘suppose’ to do well. Look at the polls next week, the only state Rubio is looking to win is Minnesota while Cruz takes Texas and maybe a couple more states. And Trump is expected to take Massachusetts.

3) Ted Cruz had a poor night in SC but let us not bury him. Remember South Carolina Primary voters are bit like the Cold War Californian Republican Party and vote for the strongest neocon military supporter. Remember, McCain won in 2008.

And why do you feel sorry for Jeb? It is clear his brother was a much better politician and judging by his Primary performance George was really the smart one! (And better yet if Jeb was not a Bush he would have not been governor but a reasonably happy CFO for mid-size company.) Well, the true lesson here is the Party should define the well funded front-runner as somebody who has not run a campaign for 13 years. Jeb! ran his brother 2004 campaign and it was never going to win.

The more unresponsive all the candidates are to saying what they will stand for, the less likely their chances.
Perception that ever less promises should be kept or even given to the common folk predominates every establishment candidate. I think they are deeply mistaken in this regard and breaking promises to the populi is not going to be tolerated especially in tough economic times. Circuses don’t work when Bread is absent.

“low income people, which are the people most affected by these restrictions on voting. If Republicans can pretend that they are preventing voter fraud (a proven non-issue), then they can prevent those extra Democrat voters from being able to cast a ballot.

“Since 2011, seven states have curtailed early voting and 13 have added requirements that voters show some form of ID.” ‘

I don’t understand why simply showing an ID would discourage low income people to vote…can you explain this to me…
If you don’t have an ID you can do much in life…I would think that not voting is your least concern.
In fact, I have seen a number of studies that indicate the opposite..that were voter ID laws were enacted voter participation went up. Perhaps people have more confidence that there vote counts.

To me, the same arguments for same day registration can be made for voter id laws..we live in a more mobile society…you need to show proof that you are who you say to are. It just seems like common sense to me (like it does to most people).

BTW, I saw the videoclip of the young Sandernista encouraging non-NH residents to vote in the primary…if I were a Clinton supporter, I would be upset and start questioning the entire process. The idea is to reduce the probability of fraud before it becomes a problem…like getting rid of hanging chads before the election…

Your example, while sound, supposes that the numerator is being predicted by the prediction market as: “assuming that the market implied probability of P(Trump wins presidency and Trump wins R nomination) is approximately equal to P(Trump wins presidency) (for obvious reasons)” ….but it’s not strictly speaking correct. Trump could run for president as an independent (though he’s ruled that out for now). In any event, the two markets may not be independently functioning; the two markets may or may not be assuming Trump or Rubio also wins the ticket primary; also they may be running at different times (sample 1 was taken a month ago, before Trump won New Hampshire, while sample 2 was taken yesterday, etc). But in general you’re correct and thanks for that example.

Still too early for any of this to be predictive — remember, Gingrich won SC with 40% before going nowhere after March 1st.

Of course it goes without saying Trump has zero chance in a general election, given how radioactive he is among Dems/Inds, and his primary results show little to no consolidation of the GOP vote even as candidates drop out.

Cruz may still win, remember Rubio has not been going head-to-head with Trump the way Cruz has, so he’s avoided a lot of flak.

Also, perversely, while Trump can take 100% of the delegates in states like SC where he wins only 32% of the vote, the pledged delegates to other candidates in non-WTA states are harder for him to get than if candidates drop out, so in a three-man race it’s be a wash.

In fact, Cruz staying in the race could turn out to be the worst thing for Donald even if Cruz doesn’t win, because Cruz supporters are a lot more likely than Cruz delegates to go to Trump. This is especially true because FL is also WTA — if Rubio can take FL and Cruz takes TX, that probably doesn’t leave enough delegates for a sub-40% candidate like Trump to win a first-round convention vote — and if he can’t win in the first round there will be huge pressure to give the nod to Rubio.

Anyways, going to try to tune out all this useless speculation till after Mar 1, as we have a baby due.

I’m not sure how helpful prediction markets are in a situation like this especially when they need to predict one single event. In my experience they often tend to go for a simple 50:50.

Do they even predict anything? They simply take any information we got until know and project this information pretty much 1:1 into the future.

What do they tell me about Hillary for example? They tell me that Hillary is the absolute favorite. (Who would have thought that). How high are her chances of winning? Roughly 50% according to the markets. – That’s a simple coin toss!

So what are the markets actually saying? – “Hillary is winning or she isn’t, you might as well toss a coin.” – Thank you very much for this information.

You are underestimating how weak of a man Jeb is. He simply doesn’t come off as a leader. He couldn’t find a proper wife for a top American family because he lacks charisma. 1% children do not marry Mexican migrant kids. Say what you want about that be cl assist or racists, but its a truth. He couldn’t attract an attractive upper class girl because he lacks charisma and personality.

One question I would have on political polls at this point is they are largely games that the highly educated play. Who have been largely against Trump for obvious reasons. Makes me think they may still be underestimating his abilities since his core support is lower class.

Ben, How many Japanese live in 4000 sq. foot McMansions with 5 baths and three car garages?

Engineer, I agree that Rubio has a better chance than Trump. But that doesn’t seem to matter to GOP voters. If the GOP is currently so full of moronic racists like Sean DiTullio that they plan to nominate Trump, then they deserved to be crushed so badly in November that the party takes decades to recover.

-Yes, but only from current information. That’s their big problem, since they know zero future information.

@TallDave, Gingrich was not a big player in New Hampshire and only got to where he did in South Carolina due to the blatant media smear on him. Romney got 24.53% in Iowa (and, like Trump, lost to a religious conservative despite being predicted by the pundits and polls to win), 39.3% in New Hampshire (with fewer notable candidates to compete with, and with second place being occupied by a candidate the media then dismissed as having any credible-sounding path to the nomination), and got 27.9% in South Carolina to Gingrich’s 40.4%. So, in the first three races, the presumptive nominee in 2012 got one double-digit win, one tie (win on the headlines; loss in retrospect), and one double-digit loss. For Trump, it’s two double-digit wins and one 3.3-point loss. Trump is looking pretty good so far compared with that other billionaire Republican presumptive nominee in the 2010s with a checkered history on healthcare, abortion, and business.

We’ve got Rubio winning only counties won by Mitt, but not even so much as most counties won by Mitt, even if we limit ourselves to outside of New Hampshire. He is Bought Robot 2.0: more bought, more robot, more Russophobia.

Meanwhile, comandante Make America Great Again has won counties won by Romney (including all in New Hampshire), counties won by Santorum, all the counties won by Gingrich, counties won by Paul (including all in New Hampshire), and a county won by Perry. He’s just more broad-based. He’s gonna win.

“Trump is looking pretty good so far compared with that other billionaire Republican presumptive nominee in the 2010s with a checkered history on healthcare, abortion, and business.”

Good to know that Trump has no checkered history…

I still think Romney did remarkably good. He had Obama on the edge of defeat until Candy Crowley took side with Obama during the second debate. I think this was the turning point. This and Romney’s strange passivity during the last debate.

Scott, it’s highly amusing to watch you flame the hell out of your commenters. Even though I love econ blogs, my favorite posts tend to be the more “human” ones. Please continue to make posts on controversial topics.

And I don’t think the debates had anything to do with it. Romney was just a terrible candidate. I was amazed that anyone could vote for him, and thought of his triumph as the epitome of establishment ability to turn water into wine.

BTW, my most important insights in my above comments and more are condensed into Does Rubio have a Ceiling? (Make America Great Again). Can’t link to it because spam filter.

“Engineer, I agree that Rubio has a better chance than Trump. But that doesn’t seem to matter to GOP voters. If the GOP is currently so full of moronic racists like Sean DiTullio that they plan to nominate Trump, then they deserved to be crushed so badly in November that the party takes decades to recover.”

It all reminds me of Silence of the Lambs. Yes, Jeb is one more hapless victim of Hannibal Lector..except in this case millions of people have come out to cheer Hannibal on….Yes Jeb is one of those evil 1%ers born with a silver spoon in his life and didn’t even seem to realize it….he should be on his fifth Russian bride by now, but he found a brown girl from mexico while teaching ESL at age 17 and fell in love with her…what a fool…

“Ben, How many Japanese live in 4000 sq. foot McMansions with 5 baths and three car garages?”

1. Manhattan is rich. Does this describe Manhattan?

2. Even so, how many Americans live in 4,000sf Mickeys and three-slot carports? Are you comparing someone in the top 10% USA to the typical Japanese?

3. Are you confusing density and wealth and income? Is a North Dakota wheat farmer even richer, as he has 120 acres and gigantic barn, plus six vehicles (pick-ups, tractors, etc., maybe even a horse-drawn carriage).

No, I am not as cosmopolitan as I would wish. I have traveled sparsely. But I have to say, Tokyo looks richer than most of Southern California (get away from the coast…) Nightlife is better in Tokyo than any city I know of.

Rubio cannot and will not win Georgia. Trump is strong there. NC is Trump country. VA is War For Terror country, so a Rubio win or close second wouldn’t be too surprising or unexpected there. I predict Rubio will not win a single county R-Money didn’t win.

Rubio might win Florida, if only because of his strength among Cubans and supporters of worsened foreign relations with every one of the U.S.’s neighbors (except maybe Mexico).

@Ray Lopez: Sorry, I must have missed it. Is this where you apologize to both me and Sumner, not only for being rude and insulting, but in the very same moment also being wrong? It’s your combination of arrogance and ignorance which is really so charming when paired together. But I didn’t notice your apology.

@Njnnja: Awwww! You gave away the secret! I wanted to see what crazy ideas Ray would come up with by himself.

And Trump soars in Betfair by ten points based on results he was widely expected to get by the polls, while Rubio falls by 10 points as a result of same. The markets deserve no special trust here. The markets also thought Cruz was the real loser here. I don’t. My thought was Cruz did well as he won in two heavily Mormon counties Romney won.

That’s what I would have figured: between 5 and 10% up for her in the general if Trump goes up 10.

Lol!! Good. She’s not ideal, but she’s at least not a theocrat, and she’s relatively sane. I could give a rat’s patooty about corrupt at this point: not saying she is, but as far as I’m concerned, let the emails fly, and lets Bill’s fly descend… I don’t really sweat the small stuff anymore. Small stuff to me at this point includes discovering that HRC personally shot each of the four US Benghazi victims in the face. You know, I’d think she probably had a good reason. Maybe to cover up something Bill did. Who cares? Peanuts compared to the disaster of Iraq and the middle East in general, complements of the neocons.

I think Trump will become the next President. I don’t see it as certain, of course, but as the most likely option. Trump is Hillary’s most electable competitor in the general election. He’ll probably win Florida and New York, though still might conceivably lose in Texas and California.

“Peanuts compared to the disaster of Iraq and the middle East in general, complements of the neocons.”

-Hillary still supports her role in helping bring the Islamic State to Libya and Syria. Unlike some, I’m not with her. And I trust her to appoint only the farthest-left SCOTUS Justice. A nightmare. Rubio would be better on the justices, much worse on foreign policy.

“Demagogue: a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.”

The impression I’m getting from you is that you think demagogy = racism. Or islamaphobia, or, simply public deployment of racial or religious prejudices. That of course is not true. Now of course, all politicians are demagogues, yes, in their appeal to emotions and prejudices to win elections. That includes not merely saying bad things about Mexicans or Muslims, but also appealing to people’s hatred of 1%ers, the patriarchy, calling for bankers to be jailed for unspecified crimes, etc; or melodramatically predicting the collapse of democracy from the overturning of some campaign finance laws. But if you think that Obama has done so less than the average national politician, I think you are proving yourself a case in point of people’s IQ dropping 20 points when discussing politics. A dislike of one of the designated oppressed demographics is not the only kind of demagagogy, believe it or not.

“Not at all. Actually, I seem to be about the only person here who knows what the word means. Hint, if you look it up in Webster’s dictionary there’s a picture of The Donald.”
Not sure if you’re aware of this, but contempt is not actually a valid substitute for an argument.

Scott, I thought you might be interested in the following, from PredictIt’s Terms and Conditions page:

“Pursuant to this letter [from the CFTC] , there is “a limit of 5000 total traders in any particular contract”, and “a limit on investment by any single participant in any particular contract [of] $850”.”

So the regulators have baked in a legal ceiling on liquidity in the PredictIt prediction markets.

Good luck with that subsidized NGDP futures market! 😉

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Search

About

Welcome to a new blog on the endlessly perplexing problem of monetary policy. You’ll quickly notice that I am not a natural blogger, yet I feel compelled by recent events to give it a shot. Read more...

Bio

My name is Scott Sumner and I have taught economics at Bentley University for the past 27 years. I earned a BA in economics at Wisconsin and a PhD at Chicago. My research has been in the field of monetary economics, particularly the role of the gold standard in the Great Depression. I had just begun research on the relationship between cultural values and neoliberal reforms, when I got pulled back into monetary economics by the current crisis.